Death Penalty
...that discrimination is wrong, and that everyone should have a fair chance at life. The principals of the penalty can be argued on many different levels, but it all boils down to the same issue: a human taking another human’s life, and whether or not it is morally allowed. One common argument is “an eye for an eye.” This argument is basically agreeing that if the candidate for the death penalty has made the bad decision to take someone’s life, then he deserves to have his life taken as well. People who believe in this often believe that it is right to take the life of the criminal. Similarly it can be argued that it is not up for the human race to decide on treatment for the criminal, and by killing him, they are allowing god to judge the person in the manner that he sees fit. But then it comes full circle and you have to consider that you have just done the same and taken a persons life. Does that make you any better than the person you just executed? In essence, the person who takes the life of the criminal, even though they are saying it was for a just cause, could wind up not being any better than the criminal himself. It all depends on what you believe to be right, but I will never believe that it is fair for one human, who is created equally to all others, to take the life of someone else. However, almost every person alive who has the power and knowledge to consider and debate this topic would find it greatly beneficial to develop an answer as to whether it is right or wrong. We say that it was barbaric for the Romans to send their minorities and crimi...